You make it sound so obvious that the CONSENSUS was wrong here. Twenty-nine DEMOCRATIC Senators voted for and twenty-one voted against.

This was not just the beliefs or actions of one man or one party.

Perhaps you need a primer on pre-emption. You really seem to fail to grasp the meaning of it and thus cannot understand why there has been no advocated change from the Bush position by Clinton or Obama.

You keep bringing up the fact that they didn't or couldn't attack us yet failing to realize that pre-emption means you take action to occur the possibility can't even arise.

Here is a helpful analogue Jimmac. How many long range missles or WMD's do you think Osama Bin Laden will have when a President Obama invades Pakistan to capture and kill him?

Oh it is the comprehension thing again because you prefer to dismiss instead of address.

The war Bush started was based off actionable intelligence, the same intelligence that the Democrats read and voted to authorize action with, and then undertook action. As Biden notes, it is the exact same policy as Bush. It is still pre-emptive war.

The rest of your post is just dismissive, and personal attacks with smilies attached. It falls beneath the threshold of deserving attention. Enjoy the last word because people clearly can understand that a continuation of pre-emptive war is the Bush doctrine, even if you are claiming you will run the doctrine better, it is the same doctrine.

Nick

Nick. So... was Iraq a bigger threat to the US, or was the US a bigger threat to Iraq, pre-invasion?

Based on your ideas of "pre-emption", therefore, Iraq had every right to attack us. Don't you agree?

So if Iraq had developed a weapon that could destroy the Pentagon, for instance, a military installment, they would have every right to use it, right?

Or does the US have more "right of pre-emptive attack" than other nations, and if so ,why?

The Democrats voted for the war for political reasons. Most of them don't denounce their decision, also for political reasons.

Now...

Since we all believe that the war was wrong from day one...

I guess you'll be voting for Dennis Kucinich... the only man who got it right and stuck to his values, from day one.

You make it sound so obvious that the CONSENSUS was wrong here. Twenty-nine DEMOCRATIC Senators voted for and twenty-one voted against.

This was not just the beliefs or actions of one man or one party.

Perhaps you need a primer on pre-emption. You really seem to fail to grasp the meaning of it and thus cannot understand why there has been no advocated change from the Bush position by Clinton or Obama.

You keep bringing up the fact that they didn't or couldn't attack us yet failing to realize that pre-emption means you take action to occur the possibility can't even arise.

Here is a helpful analogue Jimmac. How many long range missles or WMD's do you think Osama Bin Laden will have when a President Obama invades Pakistan to capture and kill him?

Oh it is the comprehension thing again because you prefer to dismiss instead of address.

The war Bush started was based off actionable intelligence, the same intelligence that the Democrats read and voted to authorize action with, and then undertook action. As Biden notes, it is the exact same policy as Bush. It is still pre-emptive war.

The rest of your post is just dismissive, and personal attacks with smilies attached. It falls beneath the threshold of deserving attention. Enjoy the last word because people clearly can understand that a continuation of pre-emptive war is the Bush doctrine, even if you are claiming you will run the doctrine better, it is the same doctrine.

Nick

Trumptman,

You must realize once you start that " After 911 " and connecting it to Iraq or " Iraq was going to attack us " crap you lose all credibility.

This issue is the most investigated, talked about, thing ever.

The intel Bush used we now know was extemely weak. He must have known this but used it anyway to fit his own agenda.

I know no one here will change your mind. Bush was handing out kool aid and you and SDW wanted a slushy. So you went to the head of the line with your Big Gulp and now have a brain freeze.

Everyone back then was hearing the president say they had proof that Saddam was in the WMD business but couldn't reveal his sources to protect them. Well......

I'm sure those in government voted for his push to attack because he sounded so sure.

I never bought it for a second.

Why you ask?

Because he liberally sprinkeled it with references to 911 in connection to Iraq. And the idea that they were somehow a threat to the U.S.

You know if you say it enough times in the same sentence people will think it's the same thing kind of like " Coolwhip the natural tasting nondairy creamer ". All people hear is " Natural ", " Dairy ", and " Creamer ".

It worked well for tv advertising in the 70's.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

With the war, it is a whole other story. Yes, they could stop the funding, but that would honestly put the soldiers at even more risk (you can't fund a withdraw either). The blame falls into this administration's lap. They have made this unjust war an occupation set in stone. They've (and I'd add AIPAC for their unstoppable lobbying process on the Republican and Democratic side) made sure no one can shut it down.

If the Congress can force the Navy to build a ship they didn't want (USS Hayler DD-997), not to mention all the unwanted aircraft and other weapon systems appropriations that get padded into Congress person's districts, then they certainly can word the appropriation to tie the money into a withdrawal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So you'll vote for Hillary over say, a Guiliani or Thompson or even McCain? Hillary is going to be the nominee. She's way worse than a Bush clone. Way.

Hate to say it, but I have to agree with you there. Hillary is the only candidate out there that scares me. She's a Democrat in name only just like Bill, and just as much as a hawk as Bush, only not nearly as stupid.

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James LovelockThe Story of Stuff

I've got to ask... yeah, Hilary's no bed of roses, but in exactly what way is she "way worse" than Bush? Just asking, because I don't think you guys really think about how bad Bush really is...

At least with Hilary I think we could look forward to some fiscal conservativism, even if it means cutting defense and "national security" which I'm not against in the least. And there' won't be any ruinous tax cuts for the rich.

We know she'll push the health care issue again, and that's a good thing!!! Nothing could put the state of American health care in a shittier state than it is already in. Nothing at all. At this point, any change, be it full privatization or notionalization, would be a good one. Any change. American health care for the poor and middle class is worse than some third world contries. And it's not even in the same league as other industrialized nations. The only people who think it's fine are the rich, who shouldn't butt their noses in because if they want something better they can pay for it themselves.

Well at least compared to Bush and the tax-cutting warmongers she'd be an absolute miser.

Sure she may be "tax and spend" but I'm a socialist (your absolute antithesis, yes I am aware), and I'm sure she wouldn't go as far as I'd like. Better tax and spend than borrow and spend. Of course I know you support cut and cut... but that's only because you're not aware of the social implications of creating a new desperately poor class and reducing the middle class to where they can't afford to visit the dentist once a year... but that's another topic.

But where is there any indication that Hilary would increase the deficit? With Bill by her side there's all evidence that she would in fact, eliminate it (again)... and oh, what a legacy that would be, wouldn't you agree?

Well at least compared to Bush and the tax-cutting warmongers she'd be an absolute miser.

Sure she may be "tax and spend" but I'm a socialist (your absolute antithesis, yes I am aware), and I'm sure she wouldn't go as far as I'd like. Better tax and spend than borrow and spend. Of course I know you support cut and cut... but that's only because you're not aware of the social implications of creating a new desperately poor class and reducing the middle class to where they can't afford to visit the dentist once a year... but that's another topic.

But where is there any indication that Hilary would increase the deficit? With Bill by her side there's all evidence that she would in fact, eliminate it (again)... and oh, what a legacy that would be, wouldn't you agree?

I am fully aware of the socialst talking point of "creating a new desperately poor class." NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. There is this thing called "social mobility" and a permanent safety net. What your policies, if put into practice, would accomplish is the complete destruction of the middle class- you guys want to tax them to death. Ask me- every time a US Democratic Socialist gets elected here- my middle class ass gets further screwed in taxes.
When those evil-hate-the-middle-class conservatives get elected, my taxes go down. Tax cuts for the "rich" indeed. The DNC thinks that a family of 4 making working class wages is "rich" and tax cuts for them, apparently, are "bad."

I'll say again- if left wing Soviet-style socialism is so wonderful, why does it usually have to be enforced at the end of a gun? With a Berlin Wall? Were there many dead bodies removed from the WEST side of the wall from people just dying to get into that kind of system?

But where is there any indication that Hilary would increase the deficit? With Bill by her side there's all evidence that she would in fact, eliminate it (again)... and oh, what a legacy that would be, wouldn't you agree?

Hopefully she'll have a Republican congress to help her along with that just like Bill Jeff did.

Yup! They only have this limited set of stock answers that keeps floating ot the surface inspite evidence to the contrary. Then they say " What evidence ? " even though it's been discussed multiple times here. Probably hoping that a person will give up through lack of patience.

Good point though. If they did it once why can't they do it again?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Fact : What you've already sited that historically republicans when they've been in power for a while tend to go the direction I've outlined before.

False. Utterly false.

Quote:

Fact : The current republicans have supported Bush's policies to the hilt. So what would you expect they would do when they get into office?

That's not quite true either. Some have supported them, some have not. Depends on the person and policy.

Quote:

Fact : I really don't mind Hillary as much a smost of you. I really liked her husbands way of governing and feel that she would mirror this.

Really. What way was that? What did he do that you liked? I keep asking, but you never answer in any way that doesn't begin with "at least he didn't [insert action of Bush or a Republican]."

Quote:

Fact : I'm damn sure she wouldn't be another Bush clone and we've had entirely enough of that for quite some time to come.

That's not a fact. That's an opinion.

Quote:

Just because they are giving Bush what he wants now doesn't mean they are in agreement with those policies. Also it doesn't mean that they are one in the same with the party that instituted those policies.

I don't even know what that means. If they vote for or against, it's where they stand, party aside.

Quote:

So we're also back to the idea that if you agree with the president's policies ( Which you've not stated your position ) then what the hell are you trying to say ( or spin )?

Really...no idea WTF you are talking about now.

[quote[

Hey it's an easy idea to wrap your mind around! The recent polls show that the american public mirrors my attitude. They don't approve of how congress has handled things so far but they still trust them more than they do the republicans.

Personally I think you guys are the ones with the weak argument.[/QUOTE]

Dubious assertion. Congress has an 18% approval rating. Make a specific claim if you're going to make one. Right now you have such a broad and vague one that you would use almost anything to support it. Convenient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinea

If we make Thompson our nominee we're complete morons. McCain...meh...8 years later I don't think he has the chops. Guiliani? Mmmm...best of the three but meh. No one in the pack excites me. Clinton would at least have humor value and frankly she couldn't do a WORSE job than Bush has.

Vinea

I like Thomspon so far. I like Guiliani too, but I'm not sure he's electable at this level. I'll vote for whomever I agree with most. I need to hear more form Thompson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

So Iraq was about to attack us? Gosh I must of missed that one!

Just how were they going to do that? Given that on a good day their missiles would only go about 700 miles. Also I seem to remember that they found no WMD.

No, but according to worldwide intelligence estimates he had the firepower to attack Israel or another ally. And, he had violated both the ceasefire and 17 UN resolutions.

Quote:

As for the rest I think you're reading a lot into statements by Ms. Clinton and Obama.

But I understand. When you get desperate and things just aren't sliding your way you tend to grasp at straws.

Both have said incredibly stupid things, and things that you'd be going batshit over if a Republican said the same. Take Hillary's recent comment about terror helping the GOP. You'd be out of your mind if someone ij the GOP said that.

Quote:

But really we all know you aren't in favor of the democrats pulling us out of Iraq. So the reasoning behind your arguments really is weak. One might even say transparent.

So one has to be in favor of a policy in order to point out someone else isn't following through?

Quote:

By the way what did you have against the civil war?

Point missed by largest margin, ever. EVER.

Quote:

Also it was a democrat who ordered then Gov. George Wallace to let a couple of black kids attend school when he stood in the way. I watched it on tv. It was something even for the young kid that I was.

Sorry but no democrat has shown the kind of disregard for the legacy left by our forefathers in the way Bush has. Not even close!

Those Democrats are long gone. The same man cut taxes in Reagan-esque fashion. Meh.

Apparently it's not right to compare Iraq to Vietnam when just talking about the conflict but it's ok when you're talking about the pullout!

Who said it wasn't OK?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

This is what we've been saying since day one. It's a clear debunking of the idea that this particular pre-emptive war was called for, or even legal.

But...

Deaf ears. Deaf, lying ears.

Called for? Well, that will be debated. As for legal, of course it was. That's just an absurd argument. It was specifically authorized by Congress. It was also Federal Law to have the policy of the US be "regime change" in Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Nick. So... was Iraq a bigger threat to the US, or was the US a bigger threat to Iraq, pre-invasion?

Based on your ideas of "pre-emption", therefore, Iraq had every right to attack us. Don't you agree?

So if Iraq had developed a weapon that could destroy the Pentagon, for instance, a military installment, they would have every right to use it, right?

Or does the US have more "right of pre-emptive attack" than other nations, and if so ,why?

[/quote]

Because the US is not morally equivalent to Saddam's Iraq. The US, for all it's flaws, was an is a member of the international community. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It participates in world affairs. It provides security for a vast number of nations. It trades with the world and provides the largest amount of aid of any nation. Now let's look at Iraq. A rogue state. Violator of UN resolutions and the 1991 ceasefire agreement. Believed to have banned weapons. History of invading it's neighbors and savaging their populations. Military dictator known for egregious human rights abuses. So yeah, we had more of a right. Absolutely.

Quote:

The Democrats voted for the war for political reasons. Most of them don't denounce their decision, also for political reasons.

Now...

Since we all believe that the war was wrong from day one...

I guess you'll be voting for Dennis Kucinich... the only man who got it right and stuck to his values, from day one.

I agree...at least he stuck to his word. I don't think he was right, but I'll give him that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Trumptman,

You must realize once you start that " After 911 " and connecting it to Iraq or " Iraq was going to attack us " crap you lose all credibility.

Ridiculous. Are you denying that the notion of what we must do to protect the country changed after that devastating attack?

Quote:

This issue is the most investigated, talked about, thing ever.

The intel Bush used we now know was extemely weak. He must have known this but used it anyway to fit his own agenda.

I know no one here will change your mind. Bush was handing out kool aid and you and SDW wanted a slushy. So you went to the head of the line with your Big Gulp and now have a brain freeze.

Everyone back then was hearing the president say they had proof that Saddam was in the WMD business but couldn't reveal his sources to protect them. Well......

All major world intel agencies had the same data. It couldn't have been that weak.

Quote:

I'm sure those in government voted for his push to attack because he sounded so sure.

I never bought it for a second.

Why you ask?

Because he liberally sprinkeled it with references to 911 in connection to Iraq. And the idea that they were somehow a threat to the U.S.

Right. See, it was Bushie that pulled the wool over Congress's poor eyes. Wht a crock of shit. They saw the same things he saw. They saw the data and drew their own conclusions. Hillary Clinton even SAID THAT. Please. Either they supported the war on their own and then changed their minds for political expediency, or they voted for it for political expediency to begin with. You choose which is worse.

Quote:

You know if you say it enough times in the same sentence people will think it's the same thing kind of like " Coolwhip the natural tasting nondairy creamer ". All people hear is " Natural ", " Dairy ", and " Creamer ".

It worked well for tv advertising in the 70's.

Funny...I never heard the admin claim Iraq was behind 9/11. That's because they didn't say it was. What was said was the 9/11 changed the way we view threats. They can't be responsible for people being stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

I've got to ask... yeah, Hilary's no bed of roses, but in exactly what way is she "way worse" than Bush? Just asking, because I don't think you guys really think about how bad Bush really is...

She's driven by raw political ambition alone. And her roots are radical left on domestic policy. Not good for me.

Quote:

At least with Hilary I think we could look forward to some fiscal conservativism, even if it means cutting defense and "national security" which I'm not against in the least. And there' won't be any ruinous tax cuts for the rich.

That's not fiscal conservatism, nor would it happen. She'll raise taxes to fund Socialized Medicine, among other things.

Quote:

We know she'll push the health care issue again, and that's a good thing!!!

Not it's not. Not at all.

Quote:

Nothing could put the state of American health care in a shittier state than it is already in. Nothing at all.

We have just about the best healthcare system in the world.

Quote:

At this point, any change, be it full privatization or notionalization, would be a good one. Any change.

Not any change.

Quote:

American health care for the poor and middle class is worse than some third world contries.

You don't live here, do you?

Quote:

And it's not even in the same league as other industrialized nations.

The only people who think it's fine are the rich, who shouldn't butt their noses in because if they want something better they can pay for it themselves.[/QUOTE]

I'm middle class, and I think it's pretty fucking good. Expensive, but excellent. The problem is that it's paid for by the government and employers and that we use insurance for everything. One man recently stated that the problem with health insurance was that it was so comprehensive, which leads to high costs. He said "imagine if your car insurance covered gas, oil changes and inspection every year. What do you think that would cost?" What we need to do is get the government and employers out of it. That's why RG's plan is the way to go. Give a huge tax deduction to buy insurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Well at least compared to Bush and the tax-cutting warmongers she'd be an absolute miser.

Tell me again why tax cuts are bad?

Quote:

Sure she may be "tax and spend" but I'm a socialist (your absolute antithesis, yes I am aware), and I'm sure she wouldn't go as far as I'd like. Better tax and spend than borrow and spend.

I might actually agree with that.

Quote:

Of course I know you support cut and cut... but that's only because you're not aware of the social implications of creating a new desperately poor class and reducing the middle class to where they can't afford to visit the dentist once a year... but that's another topic.

I don't think that's happened, nor will it happen. Middle and lower-middle class taxes have plummeted since Bush took office. How have his policies done what you claim?

But where is there any indication that Hilary would increase the deficit? With Bill by her side there's all evidence that she would in fact, eliminate it (again)... and oh, what a legacy that would be, wouldn't you agree?[/QUOTE]

Uh, except Bill didn't do that. The American economy coupled with a conservative Republican Congress did that. And Bill's not going to be President. Then again, Hillary won't be either...with any luck.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yup! They only have this limited set of stock answers that keeps floating ot the surface inspite evidence to the contrary. Then they say " What evidence ? " even though it's been discussed multiple times here. Probably hoping that a person will give up through lack of patience.

Good point though. If they did it once why can't they do it again?

The Republican Congress and the economic recovery, yes. And are you claiming that the policies instituted by that Congress were the same as the ones used by the most recent GOP Congress? You see, it's not that they "couldn't" do it again, it's that they didn't.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The Republican Congress and the economic recovery, yes. And are you claiming that the policies instituted by that Congress were the same as the ones used by the most recent GOP Congress? You see, it's not that they "couldn't" do it again, it's that they didn't.

In Hong Kong, I can go to a public hospital here, stay overnight in the hospital for three days, don't have to issue any financial documents whatsoever, and pay about US$200 for the whole thing.

Or if I think public hospital service is not good enough (and I assure you in a "per patient" ratio, there are just as many "accidents" in US hospitals), I can go to a private hospital, and pay about US$1000 per night, including physician care. No insurance, no discount. Most HK doctors have been trained in the UK, or in the very well-respected University of Hong Kong.

Now, if I have the flu, I have company provided insurance, so I can go to my local GP and get very good medical care, and pay US$3 for my prescription. No deductible. Nothing.

If I didn't have insurance, I could pay between about US$30 to $50 per visit to the local GP.

If I need to see a specialist, without insurance, I'd expect to pay between US$50 to US$200 per hour.

Now.

Please tell me how the US system compares. Please do.

And anyone else living outside of the US, I'd love it if you could share with SDW how your system compares to the US. I doubt anyone of you could give him an example of a system that's worse than the American system.

Sure sometimes there are waiting lists... but there are waiting lists in the US, in case SDW hadn't noticed.

Hmm... one month waiting list to see a government specialist (with the option of seeing a private one immediately if I pay a little more - still less than I'd pay in DEDUCTIBLE in the US), or being completely raped by fees... which would I choose...?

That's not quite true either. Some have supported them, some have not. Depends on the person and policy.

Really. What way was that? What did he do that you liked? I keep asking, but you never answer in any way that doesn't begin with "at least he didn't [insert action of Bush or a Republican]."

That's not a fact. That's an opinion.

I don't even know what that means. If they vote for or against, it's where they stand, party aside.

Really...no idea WTF you are talking about now.

[quote[

Hey it's an easy idea to wrap your mind around! The recent polls show that the american public mirrors my attitude. They don't approve of how congress has handled things so far but they still trust them more than they do the republicans.

Personally I think you guys are the ones with the weak argument.

Dubious assertion. Congress has an 18% approval rating. Make a specific claim if you're going to make one. Right now you have such a broad and vague one that you would use almost anything to support it. Convenient.

I like Thomspon so far. I like Guiliani too, but I'm not sure he's electable at this level. I'll vote for whomever I agree with most. I need to hear more form Thompson.

No, but according to worldwide intelligence estimates he had the firepower to attack Israel or another ally. And, he had violated both the ceasefire and 17 UN resolutions.

Both have said incredibly stupid things, and things that you'd be going batshit over if a Republican said the same. Take Hillary's recent comment about terror helping the GOP. You'd be out of your mind if someone ij the GOP said that.

So one has to be in favor of a policy in order to point out someone else isn't following through?

Point missed by largest margin, ever. EVER.

Those Democrats are long gone. The same man cut taxes in Reagan-esque fashion. Meh.

Your last statement is subjective and unsupportable.

Who said it wasn't OK?

Called for? Well, that will be debated. As for legal, of course it was. That's just an absurd argument. It was specifically authorized by Congress. It was also Federal Law to have the policy of the US be "regime change" in Iraq.

So if Iraq had developed a weapon that could destroy the Pentagon, for instance, a military installment, they would have every right to use it, right?

Or does the US have more "right of pre-emptive attack" than other nations, and if so ,why?

[/quote]

Because the US is not morally equivalent to Saddam's Iraq. The US, for all it's flaws, was an is a member of the international community. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It participates in world affairs. It provides security for a vast number of nations. It trades with the world and provides the largest amount of aid of any nation. Now let's look at Iraq. A rogue state. Violator of UN resolutions and the 1991 ceasefire agreement. Believed to have banned weapons. History of invading it's neighbors and savaging their populations. Military dictator known for egregious human rights abuses. So yeah, we had more of a right. Absolutely.

I agree...at least he stuck to his word. I don't think he was right, but I'll give him that.

Ridiculous. Are you denying that the notion of what we must do to protect the country changed after that devastating attack?

All major world intel agencies had the same data. It couldn't have been that weak.

Right. See, it was Bushie that pulled the wool over Congress's poor eyes. Wht a crock of shit. They saw the same things he saw. They saw the data and drew their own conclusions. Hillary Clinton even SAID THAT. Please. Either they supported the war on their own and then changed their minds for political expediency, or they voted for it for political expediency to begin with. You choose which is worse.

Funny...I never heard the admin claim Iraq was behind 9/11. That's because they didn't say it was. What was said was the 9/11 changed the way we view threats. They can't be responsible for people being stupid.

She's driven by raw political ambition alone. And her roots are radical left on domestic policy. Not good for me.

That's not fiscal conservatism, nor would it happen. She'll raise taxes to fund Socialized Medicine, among other things.

Not it's not. Not at all.

We have just about the best healthcare system in the world.

Not any change.

You don't live here, do you?

The only people who think it's fine are the rich, who shouldn't butt their noses in because if they want something better they can pay for it themselves.[/QUOTE]

I'm middle class, and I think it's pretty fucking good. Expensive, but excellent. The problem is that it's paid for by the government and employers and that we use insurance for everything. One man recently stated that the problem with health insurance was that it was so comprehensive, which leads to high costs. He said "imagine if your car insurance covered gas, oil changes and inspection every year. What do you think that would cost?" What we need to do is get the government and employers out of it. That's why RG's plan is the way to go. Give a huge tax deduction to buy insurance.

Tell me again why tax cuts are bad?

I might actually agree with that.

I don't think that's happened, nor will it happen. Middle and lower-middle class taxes have plummeted since Bush took office. How have his policies done what you claim?

But where is there any indication that Hilary would increase the deficit? With Bill by her side there's all evidence that she would in fact, eliminate it (again)... and oh, what a legacy that would be, wouldn't you agree?[/QUOTE]

Uh, except Bill didn't do that. The American economy coupled with a conservative Republican Congress did that. And Bill's not going to be President. Then again, Hillary won't be either...with any luck.[/QUOTE] "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God what gigantic post full of nonfact and subjective observation!

By the way the president has frequently mentioned 911 and Iraq in the same sentence as if they were one in the same. So have you.

I don't know what's wrong but I replied to your post like normal and I got this. I've drawn a line after your stuff for clairity.

By the way I'm " Denying the notion " That we can do anything that sacrifices our legacy values under the guise of protecting the country. When you do that America in the strictest sense doesn't exsit anymore and doesn't deserve protection.. The thing you're trying to protect has morphed into something resembling America's enemys ideologically.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

The Republican Congress and the economic recovery, yes. And are you claiming that the policies instituted by that Congress were the same as the ones used by the most recent GOP Congress? You see, it's not that they "couldn't" do it again, it's that they didn't.

Oh I see it's different!

I'll have to remember that one for future reference!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

In Hong Kong, I can go to a public hospital here, stay overnight in the hospital for three days, don't have to issue any financial documents whatsoever, and pay about US$200 for the whole thing.

In the US, most people are insured and pay $25 for the that same visit. Or nothing. It depends.

Quote:

Or if I think public hospital service is not good enough (and I assure you in a "per patient" ratio, there are just as many "accidents" in US hospitals), I can go to a private hospital, and pay about US$1000 per night, including physician care. No insurance, no discount. Most HK doctors have been trained in the UK, or in the very well-respected University of Hong Kong.

You'd pay about the same here with no insurance. The price varies when you don't have it. Not sure of the point here anyway, because anyone middle class and up has insurance for the most part.

Quote:

Now, if I have the flu, I have company provided insurance, so I can go to my local GP and get very good medical care, and pay US$3 for my prescription. No deductible. Nothing.

I pay $10 generic and $15 name brand, or $20 for a 3 months supply by mail. I just got 650 pills of ultracet for back pain for $20.

Quote:

If I didn't have insurance, I could pay between about US$30 to $50 per visit to the local GP.

You'd pay a little more here. Maybe $75.

Quote:

If I need to see a specialist, without insurance, I'd expect to pay between US$50 to US$200 per hour.

OK.

Quote:

Now.

Please tell me how the US system compares. Please do.

And anyone else living outside of the US, I'd love it if you could share with SDW how your system compares to the US. I doubt anyone of you could give him an example of a system that's worse than the American system.

My sister has been to the doctor in the UK, Germany and in Canada. She's a huge liberal by the way....and I can assure you her experience was much worse than in the States.

Quote:

Sure sometimes there are waiting lists... but there are waiting lists in the US, in case SDW hadn't noticed.

Not unless you need an organ transplant.

Quote:

Hmm... one month waiting list to see a government specialist (with the option of seeing a private one immediately if I pay a little more - still less than I'd pay in DEDUCTIBLE in the US), or being completely raped by fees... which would I choose...?

Many have no deductible. I have a $5 co-pay to see any doctor. The problem is that my employer picks up this tab. It would be better to let me go buy my own insurance for $12,000 a year. Or better yet, do away with insurance for drugs, GP visits, etc....keep it for specialists, surgery, emergencies etc. Watch the price of insurance and medical care plummet.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It looks like you really honestly believe most Americans have insurance and can afford it.

I really think you think you are an average middle class American. I'd like to know exactly what percentile of income earners you fall into. I bet you're above 70%.

You ask "who can't afford it?"

My answer is, most likely the bottom 20% of all wage earners in the US. That's one out of five people. Not good enough.

First you say, "...most people are insured..." and then change it to "...anyone middle class and up has insurance for the most part..." and I do not think you're correct, unless you're calling yourself "middle class". By "middle class" I'm talking roughly those individuals earning no more than about $20,000 above the median wage ($24,000 in 2003) in the US. I bet you earn much more than that, dontcha?

The fact is that in the US, you absolutely can't expect to get any medical care unless you have insurance. In every other developed nation, you can.

I also see in your post that you're basing everything on your particular insurance policy. Answer honeslty: Do you think you have an "average" insurance policy? Or one that perhaps is better than what most "middle class" individuals have?

It looks like you really honestly believe most Americans have insurance and can afford it.

That's because most middle class people can. The majority have employer subsidized health insurance.

Quote:

I really think you think you are an average middle class American. I'd like to know exactly what percentile of income earners you fall into. I bet you're above 70%.

I make about $60K a year. In terms of percentages, that puts me in the top 20% or so, I think. Not sure that's relevant, but whatever.

Quote:

You ask "who can't afford it?"

My answer is, most likely the bottom 20% of all wage earners in the US. That's one out of five people. Not good enough.

They can afford insurance, just not the best insurance. Hospitalization policies and major health care event policies are pretty cheap.

Quote:

First you say, "...most people are insured..." and then change it to "...anyone middle class and up has insurance for the most part..." and I do not think you're correct, unless you're calling yourself "middle class". By "middle class" I'm talking roughly those individuals earning no more than about $20,000 above the median wage ($24,000 in 2003) in the US. I bet you earn much more than that, dontcha?

Are you saying I'm "upper class" because I earn $60K a year? Are you shitting me sir? The fact is that most people in the middle class are insured. Not all, but most.

Quote:

The fact is that in the US, you absolutely can't expect to get any medical care unless you have insurance. In every other developed nation, you can.

I also see in your post that you're basing everything on your particular insurance policy. Answer honeslty: Do you think you have an "average" insurance policy? Or one that perhaps is better than what most "middle class" individuals have?

No, I don't. That's true. Mine is better than many out there.

Keep in mind, I'm agreeing the system needs reform. I just don't think it's the disaster you claim it is. I also disagree on what the solution is. We've got a system where doctor's charge $300 so they can collect $90 in insurance payments. We've got a system where my employer pays 90% + of my insurance costs, which means I basically don't care what the policy costs. We also have a system where drug companies can market elective drugs to consumers, drugs their insurance companies end up paying for. That's why my health policy would be $1000 a month if I bought it on my own. Real reform is needed, but it needs to be competition and free market based reform as opposed to nationalization. That will likely make the problem worse.

Speaking generally, I also have to laugh at those who think that our government can run what it tries to now, much less a gigantic new healthcare bureaucracy.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Keep in mind, I'm agreeing the system needs reform. I just don't think it's the disaster you claim it is. I also disagree on what the solution is. We've got a system where doctor's charge $300 so they can collect $90 in insurance payments. We've got a system where my employer pays 90% + of my insurance costs, which means I basically don't care what the policy costs. We also have a system where drug companies can market elective drugs to consumers, drugs their insurance companies end up paying for. That's why my health policy would be $1000 a month if I bought it on my own. Real reform is needed, but it needs to be competition and free market based reform as opposed to nationalization. That will likely make the problem worse.

Speaking generally, I also have to laugh at those who think that our government can run what it tries to now, much less a gigantic new healthcare bureaucracy.

Are you the only bread winner in your household?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Well the only reason that I asked is because where I work the people who are in your same wage bracket and are married combine their insurance coverage to get full coverage.

Thanks. I actually don't see that happen much. When I was married, I carried the insurance. My wife really had shitty options for it anyway. Now, I have my daughter and I and she bought a reduced policy for like $100 something a month. That's what I'm talking about really. The average person can at least buy a hospitalization policy and a prescrip policy for an affordable sum. That's if they aren't covered at work. Most full-time middle class jobs have at least decent health insurance, with employees paying between 5-20% of the premium.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

So SDW, is your ex-wife middle class or not? I guess since most middle class have good insurance, and she has "shitty options", she must be below middle class...

I could have set my watch to when you'd point that out. Her job, at a private school, didn't pay much for health insurance. However, she can certainly afford her own, even if it's not what she had with my plan. Im not claiming everyone has comprehensive coverage through their employers....but most can at least afford insurance.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I could have set my watch to when you'd point that out. Her job, at a private school, didn't pay much for health insurance. However, she can certainly afford her own, even if it's not what she had with my plan. Im not claiming everyone has comprehensive coverage through their employers....but most can at least afford insurance.

Well, now, if her job, where she's earning enough, doesn't provide insurance that is good enough, what about those people who aren't earning enough? What are their options? Or are you saying that there are no people in the US, even in the middle class, who can't afford to buy their own "good enough" policies, or even policies that would provide coverage as good as PUBLIC coverage in other industrialized nations?

My point in this entire exchange is to point out that the reason that the US health care system is "not good enough" is because it's not good enough, specifically for the poor and lower middle classes. And compared to care in other countries, it is not.

But... as a person who time after time appears to feel "entitled", you probably think that if there's someone who can't afford better care then that's their problem. They should work harder. They should have made better decisions. Why should your hard-earned money help subsidize their medical costs when they're simply not good enough or too lazy to have done better for themselves?